2009/12/2 Atte André Jensen <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:atte.jensen@gmail.com">atte.jensen@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">

<div class="im">For my needs it seems ubuntu performs just as well as arch</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Correct, because if there were any &quot;performance&quot; differences between distributions in the first place, I swear I&#39;ll start using one of the BSDs full-time =p</div>

<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">and running the more</div>
non-standard selection of software I had going under arch means little<br>
strange things keeps poping up.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Also correct; for some users and their habits, workflow, arsenal of software, it may or may not be worth the time investment. In this case, for &quot;control&quot;, one might want to take a look at Sabayon (since they also manage binaries alongside portage).</div>

<div><br></div><div>In short, the benefits have nothing to do with real-world system performance. Hell, I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if things ran slower since we don&#39;t add any kind of optimisation that bigger distros might. Our thinkers and hackers contribute to upstream directly, we don&#39;t have our own &quot;patches&quot; or &quot;hacks&quot; unless functionality is compromised.</div>

<div><br></div></div><br>-- <br>GPG/PGP ID: B42DDCAD<br>